Originally posted by pritybettaI posted this on the Debate forum. I didn't know if any of you only read this forum or not so I posted it here also.

This article refers to the Bible and what happened after Katrina when the law was unconstitutionally taking away the citizens guns with force.

The 'Higher Powers': Martial Law vs. Christian Responsibility

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hawes4.html

Could a single Southern farm have been burned had Northerners not consented to Lincoln’s rampage? Could Stalin or Mao have murdered tens of millions of their own countrymen without the assistance of their "Peoples’" armies? Make no mistake, if the United States government ever decides to oppress its own people, for whatever reason, it will not be the President or members of Congress, or the Joint Chiefs who go around intimidating people, kicking in doors, muzzling protest, dividing families, jailing and/or torturing dissenters or carrying off property. It will be you. They will expect you to do these things for them. The question is: can you live with it? And even more importantly: can you answer to God for it?

Originally posted by kirksey957Could a single Southern farm have been burned had Northerners not consented to Lincoln’s rampage? Could Stalin or Mao have murdered tens of millions of their own countrymen without the assistance of their "Peoples’" armies? Make no mistake, if the United States government ever decides to oppress its own people, for whatever reason, it will not be the Pres ...[text shortened]... importantly: can you answer to God for it?

This speaks volumes about the author's mindset.

If it came down to the government trampling on my rights insomuch that I can no longer protect myself or my family from criminals, I will fight. Also in the event that another country tries to envade, the people need to be able to fight back as the militia. Many would say the militia is not the citizens, I say they are for that is what the founding fathers ment when they said militia:

"Alexander Hamilton: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2"

Originally posted by pritybettaIf it came down to the government trampling on my rights insomuch that I can no longer protect myself or my family from criminals, I will fight. Also in the event that another country tries to envade, the people need to be able to fight back as the militia. Many would say the militia is not the citizens, I say they are for that is what the founding father ...[text shortened]... ; Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2"

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

Hamilton's arguments are predicated on conditions that made it impractical to develop a "well-regulated militia" at the time. They are conditions that have not been applicable for a very long time.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHamilton's arguments are predicated on conditions that made it impractical to develop a "well-regulated militia" at the time. They are conditions that have not been applicable for a very long time.

So you don't believe that it would cause problems for some if they were to go through required training? You don't think that it would interfear wtith their jobs, family, and way of living?

Even now it is hard for some to go throught trainning. And it is impractical to develop a "well-regulated militia" without it being another part of the military today. I think Hamilton's arguments apply now more then they did then.

Originally posted by pritybettaSo you don't believe that it would cause problems for some if they were to go through required training? You don't think that it would interfear wtith their jobs, family, and way of living?

Even now it is hard for some to go throught trainning. And it is impractical to develop a "well-regulated militia" without it being another part of the military today. I think Hamilton's arguments apply now more then they did then.

It seems to me that the point of Hamilton's argument was that it was impractical to properly train those in the militia. That all that should be done is to "have them properly armed and equipped".

The militia system is archaic and for all intents and purposes no longer in use in the US as it was in Hamilton's time. From what I can tell, it has been replaced by the National Guard and the military reserve system - the members of which are trained.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt seems to me that the point of Hamilton's argument was that it was impractical to properly train those in the militia. That all that should be done is to "have them properly armed and equipped".

The militia system is archaic and for all intents and purposes no longer in use in the US as it was in Hamilton's time. From what I can tell, it has been rep ...[text shortened]... ed by the National Guard and the military reserve system - the members of which are trained.

The government would like you to believe that it has been replaced by these, however, that was not the intentions of the founding fathers. They wanted the citizens to be armed so that if the military were to fail the citizens can fight. They also wanted the citizens to be armed so that the government would not get too powerful, which is what is happening now. If the citizens do not vote differently soon(that is not to mention that the elections may be rigged and I believe they are) then we may have to do what the founding fathers set up for us to do and fight for our rights once again. However, it will be with our own government.

This is what happened with the civil war, some states wanted smaller government and others wanted big government. The South knew the government was getting too powerful and was not fallowing the Constitution, therefore they rebelled against it.

Originally posted by pritybettaThe government would like you to believe that it has been replaced by these, however, that was not the intentions of the founding fathers. They wanted the citizens to be armed so that if the military were to fail the citizens can fight. They also wanted the citizens to be armed so that the government would not get too powerful, which is what is happening ...[text shortened]... getting too powerful and was not fallowing the Constitution, therefore they rebelled against it.

What are these "rights" that you'd fight (shed blood?) for? Are they not "in this world"? Wouldn't it go against the commandments of Jesus?

Mark 12:30-31
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

John 12:25-26
"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."

Originally posted by pritybettaThe government would like you to believe that it has been replaced by these, however, that was not the intentions of the founding fathers. They wanted the citizens to be armed so that if the military were to fail the citizens can fight. They also wanted the citizens to be armed so that the government would not get too powerful, which is what is happening ...[text shortened]... getting too powerful and was not fallowing the Constitution, therefore they rebelled against it.

Well, Rev. K is here to give you some hope. Never say I don't offer hope to people who seem lost even to the point of taking up arms. I would suggest you go to a NASCAR event and not wear a bra and drink lots of beer. I am convinced that this is the last living remnant of the Confederacy. God bless and have a good time.

Originally posted by kirksey957Well, Rev. K is here to give you some hope. Never say I don't offer hope to people who seem lost even to the point of taking up arms. I would suggest you go to a NASCAR event and not wear a bra and drink lots of beer. I am convinced that this is the last living remnant of the Confederacy. God bless and have a good time.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/393723459_fb10692dda.jpg?v=0
(Note she is wearing a cross)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/1445855583_ad0420f93f.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1362/1445993069_1cdd7a34b3.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/393728566_c99a0d710b.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/393723454_28eeec4c99.jpg?v=0
(Note, this one's head is covered for biblical purposes)

Originally posted by pritybettaThe government would like you to believe that it has been replaced by these, however, that was not the intentions of the founding fathers. They wanted the citizens to be armed so that if the military were to fail the citizens can fight. They also wanted the citizens to be armed so that the government would not get too powerful, which is what is happening ...[text shortened]... getting too powerful and was not fallowing the Constitution, therefore they rebelled against it.

My significant other is half Apache, a descendant of Cochise and Geronimo. She has this bizarre notion that her people were here first and that she should be able to take up arms and kick you out. Can you imagine the audacity??

Originally posted by BadwaterMy significant other is half Apache, a descendant of Cochise and Geronimo. She has this bizarre notion that her people were here first and that she should be able to take up arms and kick you out. Can you imagine the audacity??